i find it ridiculous that CARA gives adult ratings to movies with only profanity in them and nothing else. it was an international embarrassment that because of 13 expletives, only in america was a restricted rating given to "The King's Speech." americans are a nation of hypocritical hysterical prudes.

Yes, but it was the "F Bomb" after all. They can't let little Johnny hear that at the movies.

other more mature people in other western nations have no issues with profanity, it's only in nambypamby america that we pretent to swoon when we hear cursing or see a little boob.

A "little boob"? Are you referring to a politician? Not sure who you're talking about?

referring to the janet jackson breast-exposure during a primetime ballgame on tv several years back.

i find it ridiculous that CARA gives adult ratings to movies with only profanity in them and nothing else.

The same pertains in the UK too. A film with one or two 'F'-words will get a '12A'/'12'. A lot of them will get it a '15' and if the 'C'-word is used repeatedly and especially aggressively towards women you're looking at an '18' rating but of course there will be other reasons for giving it such a rating. At '18', there are no restrictions whatsoever on swearing.

Interestingly, here's a rare case of an old film's classification certificate being upgraded.

Ghostbusters was originally passed uncut for cinema and video in the mid-1980s with a 'PG' certificate. The movie is being re-released theatrically. The BBFC examined the film afresh and decided to classify the film '12A' (and will classify it '12' when it comes to video). The reason for the decision is due to the fact that, until 1994, there was no certificate between 'PG' or '15', which lead to many children's films being cut for 'PG'. Basically, the sex references that were allowed at the 'PG' level in the 1980s are no longer acceptable and have therefore decided that this is one of those rare cases of the same version of an old film being given a higher rating decades after its original rating.

I don't know to draw the line, but there are certain films like "The 120 Days of Sodom" which could be classified as art, rather than torture-porn. I've never seen it, but from the descriptions, it might be shown as an "art" film. But to elevate rubbish to the level of art is just wrong-headed.

_________________I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow. I feel my fate in what I cannot fear. I learn by going where I have to go. ~Theodore Roethke

I don't know to draw the line, but there are certain films like "The 120 Days of Sodom" which could be classified as art, rather than torture-porn.

I've seen Salò. Yes, it's an art film but it's also very hard going. Which was why it was rejected in 1975 and wasn't passed uncut until 25 years later. The last five or ten minutes of that film are probably some of the more gruelling scenes in cinema. I have no desire to watch the film again, and especially not the 'chocolate and marmalade' scene, put it that way.

I don't believe films should be banned unless they contain material that is frankly illegal. In which case a call to the police should be in order rather than a simple rejection. I still have absolutely zero desire to see The Bunny Game, nor almost any of the works the BBFC have rejected outright in the last ten years (though Love Camp 7 has a certain charm and Women in Cellblock 9 would have been passed '18' uncut if it weren't for silly age of consent laws - the lead actress was 16 at the time the film was made and featured in many scenes nude in a sexual context).

What happens when a film isn't classified? What are they permitted to do with it?

Usually there are about two or three rejections a year for various reasons although sometimes refusals happen if the distributors elect not to make the required cuts for a certificate, as happened with the video submission of Straw Dogs in 1999 and the cinema version of The Last House on the Left the following year) and for the last ten years have all been for video/DVD (with the exception of the game Manhunt 2 where a cut version was later passed '18' after appeal and of course the case of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) earlier this year. Another reason why a work might be rejected is because the amount of cuts would be so extensive or complex as to make a release not worth the bother.

Films are allowed to be released on video with a voluntary 'E' certificate if the content is strictly educational and does not contain anything objectionable.

If a work is rejected the distributor essentially has two options:

To abandon the release altogether, or

To reduce - and often emasculate - the work enough in order to get some sort of release through the BBFC.

Most distributors choose the former as many rejections are of low-budget horror films containing endless scenes of rape, torture and humiliation, death video compilations, instructive videos on how to produce your own illegal substances, pornographic films with rape themes and so on.

Quote:

The classifications board is misguided.

I think so too. I think it's wrong to reject films like this. As long as the content isn't illegal (and I think much of the "extreme porn" law ought to be repealed) I'd be all for passing the film '18' uncut but only with a specific warning on the DVD artwork.

Quote:

I really don't see how this film can pose a threat to adults.

It might encourage some unbalanced or dangerous people and I think that's the BBFC's concern. I won't be losing any sleep over this rejection but I still believe it to be wrong.

It might encourage some unbalanced or dangerous people and I think that's the BBFC's concern. I won't be losing any sleep over this rejection but I still believe it to be wrong.

Doubt it. I'd like to see any evidence at all of that.

Yeah it's not a particularly big deal for me either. I might be slightly annoyed if it was a film I was interested in though. All I'd do is just download it when it inevitably releases uncut in other countries (ideally).

Yeah it's not a particularly big deal for me either. I might be slightly annoyed if it was a film I was interested in though. All I'd do is just download it when it inevitably releases uncut in other countries (ideally).

The last video rejected that I would have had any interest in seeing at all would be Women in Cellblock 9 which was rejected in 2004.

Well, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) was passed uncut in Australia for instance so with higher budget films there is a much better chance that a film will be released uncut somewhere. You could also import it, though depending on what the material is it runs the risk of being seized or you might get raided in some instances.

13 repetitions of the F word. that is all. the censored version is now the only one available for public exhibition here in nambypamby land.

It's worth noting that an exception was made for this film due to the specific context of the profanity. Had the bad language been used in more usual circumstances the appeal would not have been successful.

13 repetitions of the F word. that is all. the censored version is now the only one available for public exhibition here in nambypamby land.

It's worth noting that an exception was made for this film due to the specific context of the profanity. Had the bad language been used in more usual circumstances the appeal would not have been successful.

that is a nuance which doesn't go over well here in the "freedom fries" land of "not doing nuance." for the longest time here, all radio/tv presentations of the song "anything goes" were forced to use the "three letter words" version, they weren't even allowed to say the mere phrase "four letter words" for christ's sake! broadcasters weren't even allowed to refer to four letter words by saying the phrase "words starting with F or S," that was routinely bleeped out as well, with fuzzies over the mouths of the people uttering the mere phrase. how can a mere word be so foul that it cannot even be hinted at or alluded to in any way? that is thought control, i tell you!